Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), originated from America but is reported recently from Africa and the Asia-Pacific. FAW has caused huge international concern since its outbreak in Africa since 2016 and in Asia since mid-2018. The chapter mainly reviews its global distribution, life cycle, identification characters, strains, host plants, nature of damage, economic damage, and integrated pest management strategies available. The pest completes its life cycle on maize in 30 days (in warm summer months); in cooler temperatures, it may extend up to 60–90 days. For effective management of fall armyworm, different tools, viz., cultural control, agronomic management, breeding for resistance, natural enemies, and eco-friendly insecticides, should be used in an integrated approach. As the insect is recently introduced to Africa and the Asia-Pacific, possible management strategies and future cases of action are discussed

Host association of spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) corn and rice strains in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay

Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) is composed of two genetically distinct strains, the so-called corn strain and the rice strain. Whether the two strains differ in their host use is unclear, because laboratory experiments have not been able to show consistent host performance or preference differences between them, and field studies showed high rates of hybridization, as well as some degree asymmetric host use. To determine the distribution of the two strains and their association with host plants, we collected fall armyworm larvae from different crops (corn, rice, alfalfa, and sorghum) and grasses in 15 different localities over 4 yr in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. The strain identity was analyzed using two polymorphisms in the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I gene. We identified the corn and rice haplotypes and three types of populations were characterized based on the frequencies of the individuals that belonged to any of these haplotypes: in 44% of populations the corn haplotype predominated, in 44% of populations the rice haplotype was the most frequent, and 11% of populations showed both haplotypes at similar proportions. In total, eight populations (47%) showed the expected pattern, two populations (12%) were polymorphic within the same field, and seven populations (41%) showed the inverse pattern. Taken together, there was no consistent pattern of host association between the two sympatric genotypes and their respective host plants. This investigation supports the need for additional studies to determine which other forces keep the genotypes separate, and what is the degree of genetic differentiation between these populations.Fil: Juárez, María Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Murúa, María Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Garcia, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Ontivero, Marta. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Vera, María Teresa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia; ArgentinaFil: Vilardi, Juan Cesar. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Cs.exactas y Naturales. Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución. Genética de Población Aplicadas; ArgentinaFil: Groot, Astrid T.. University of Amsterdam; Países BajosFil: Castagnaro, Atilio Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Gastaminza, Gerardo Alfredo. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; ArgentinaFil: Willink, Eduardo. Gobierno de Tucumán. Ministerio de Desarrollo Productivo. Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres; Argentin